Let me start by saying that Jacques Audiard is a filmmaker I respected enormously; "A Prophet" is one of my favorite movies of the century; and "Dheepan" is a beautiful refugee drama.

I say this to explain why I finally watched the unhinged musical "Emilia Pérez" after successfully avoiding it two Oscar seasons ago: I didn't follow the award circuit closely and never imagined Audiard was the name behind the film that got tons of Oscar nominations plus an entire country against it.

It wasn’t until yesterday, when "Emilia Perez" popped up on my screen, that I realized Audiard had directed it. So I pressed play, ready to prove the haters wrong. Well, of course they were right, and now I can see why Mexican viewers had such strong objections.

Audiard’s genre-blending mess of a movie displays cultural carelessness at best and inhumanity at worst. I got the impression that Audiard, as a filmmaker, thought he was creating a fantastical version of the country of Mexico, but this isn’t Oz. His dramatic material draws on the real suffering of real people whose lives he didn’t bother to understand.

The more I think about the plot, the more absurd Audiard’s decision to build an original movie musical around cartel violence and gender identity seems. I could perhaps respect the sheer boldness of it if the execution hadn’t been so crappy AND if Audiard had found a way around the film’s central moral problem: the extraordinary generosity it extends to the lead character.

Let me recap. Karla Sofía Gascón plays Manitas, a drug cartel boss whose greatest wish is to transition in secret while faking his own death to escape this extremely violent and macho background. A few years after transitioning, now living happily as a Emilia Pérez; she contacts the lawyer played by Zoe Saldaña, who aided her at the beginning, to go back home.

Anyway, with the softer heart Emilia now possesses, she decides to try to make amends to the cartels’ victims and establishes an organization to help locate missing people. The movie frames this as wonderful work, but in the context of the real-world Mexico, we are talking about a staggering scale of cartel violence—the victims aren’t just people involved in drug trafficking, but also children, women, ordinary citizens—and thousands of families searching for missing relatives or just waiting for their remains to be found.

And what’s being proposed here is that this fictional character who has VARIOUS real-life counterparts and would presumably have been responsible for hundreds (maybe thousands) of murders can suddenly escape her past and emerge happy, at peace with herself, with ALL the money accumulated through criminal activity—naturally, without answering for any of those crimes. The suggestion, then, is that this attempt at making amends is enough.

At a certain point, Emilia allows her more violent self to resurface. (The movie, which also drew criticism from trans viewers, seems to treat her former identity as Manitas as a kind of “split personality.”) This final eruption of violence results in a tragedy from which Emilia emerges—wait for it!—sanctified. No, I’m not speaking figuratively. And that was all, the movie was over.

What did I even see? I don’t even know how to wrap this up except, I guess, by apologizing for reminding everyone that this film exists, and for ignoring the warnings of those who encouraged me and the world that it was not worth it.

I thought the Digger credits were some of the best parts of the movie, especially because I watched it with my mom, who was a biologist before she retired.

She pointed out that during the credits, the forest sounds (unsure which forest) they played were that of native frog species to the Amazon rainforest. Slowly, as the credits went on they introduced sounds of the North American Bullfrog. The North American bullfrog is widely invasive and aggressive to local fauna, and can expand rapidly in water.

Thought this was such an apt reflection of the film itself, and a great way to end it off. Equally loved the lights coming up with the “Level 4” announcement. What do y’all think?

Say what you want about Digger, but I maintain that it is the best acting I've ever seen from Tom Cruise. I believe he was the best pick for this role, and given what I've heard about the background discussions that got him onto the set of Tropic Thunder, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being one of his favourite roles.

In fact, the acting in Digger is top notch all-around and I particularly loved the over-acted scenes, given the context.

Unsurprisingly, it's the best film this year in my opinion. I believe those who dislike the film are anchored to unrealistic expectations of what the film ought to have been - whether it be the story, style, acting, etc.

If you haven't watched Digger yet, I strongly recommend watching it in theatres and going into it with zero context and zero expectations.

I did not love the movie when it came out but I still really respect its craft. But I do think it’s one of those movies that work better in your mind as a concept than as a movie. Though in the future when people aren’t really as familiar with the Backrooms then the movie could be mindblowing. The acting is all well done, I don’t like the writing but I think it can work in it’s favor for cult class.

*Trapped in an insane asylum or some other place

I feel like I’ve seen this trope a lot growing up, including in an episode of Sabrina the Teenage Witch. You show up somewhere and everything seems fine, and then suddenly, you realise you aren’t allowed to ever leave. Like the Eagles song “Hotel California” - “you can check out any time you like, but… you can never leeeeave”.

I always wondered what the original reference(s) might be! Is there even such a thing?

I remember this film being a real event. Based on a bestseller, Fincher directing, Affleck’s renaissance and a starring role for the mysterious Rosamund Pike.

And it didn’t disappoint. It felt like a truly high-end thriller. Clever, witty, dark, daring and with multiple twists and turns.

It’s 2.5 hours but feels like half that with the great pacing. I love that early scene when Det Rhonda Boney and her assistant are examining the house and asking Nick various questions. The police work is very satisfying and just how much do they suspect Nick? How much do [i]we[/i] suspect him? The film keeps your imagination so alive the whole time.

New awesome characters keep popping up - Tyler Perry as the ace lawyer, Sela Ward as the sympathetic talk-show host, Ratajkowksi as the student with the huge naturals, Doogie Howser as the creepy ex with a very memorable… fate. The guy who plays Amy’s previous victim is wonderfully sad and sympathetic. The gross trailer-trash couple who try to steal from Amy. Everyone nails their role.

The whole mood is delicious - Fincher’s sleek visuals and Reznor & Ross’ dreamy score combine to create a kind of perfect hell. You get totally lost in the film’s sexy macabre universe.

When was the last time you saw a top class Hollywood thriller with big stars and a decent budget. For me that was twelve years ago with Gone Girl.

I don’t understand why Fincher has been relegated to Netflix. He’s one of our greatest living directors and he should surely be cranking out more of these great thrillers - they’re awesome, everyone loves them, and they make bank 🤷🏻‍♂️

WARNING: Long Post (Summary in comment)

Without any delay, straight to point, ofcourse you have to remember or rewatch the movies if YOU want to be sure. I won't try to establish a timeline but just lay it out there.😁

First, who is said popularly(but never ever officially, specially not with current meaning)a Re-boot.

Craig Era:

FIRST It starts with a B&W scene, usually used to show past, the trailer teasers were advertised that way, 'past of your hero', it shows the actions that led to him gettin Double O status. Then it cuts/jump to colored scenes, LeChiffre the villain with blood tears and parkour scene where 007 is experienced enough to get annoyed by a rookie touching his ears.

Then after getting out of hospital, there is some time spend with Vesper, then after the line "the bitch is dead" and James checking the phone, we see Mr White getting shot in leg. WHICH opens up and continue in QOS opening titles, he is escaping gunfire car chase while kidnapping mr white. The movie takes place in 2008, which is atleast 1 year gap, So? there is again a timejump.

QOS, pre-title is very close to its main movie and ending. THEN

SECOND Skyfall 2012, takes place definatly after quite some time. It uses past/legacy and depends on it very hard. That is, to believe in the movie one have to know and have familiarity with character, as he is now a 'Old Dog'. We will cut of 'just nods/winks/homages' becasue there is limit to them, you have a object/car which is running and firing around becomes vital part of movie-in-universe. SO, whats there, Aston Martin with same number plate, M. knowing about the ejector seat(M, Q, Moneypenny have always been treated as regulars/stand-ins).

No its not the same car from Casino, THEN, Goldfinger, Thunderball have happened, there was a previous Q, old too, because 007 was surprised to see a young person and he says 'not exactly christmas', so he is used to high-gadgets. Without it all feels illegitimate, a movie have to have in-universe explaination, like Goldeneye opening scene of Aston drive, because they never deny it same guy.(They were trying to get same number plate in 1995 but legal problems).

Current-Time/Events were always just setting where the movies took place to tell the story.

So, craig's Bond have gone to Goldeneye, Thunderball, Goldeneye somehow-someway. As we see NTTD, we then know that he have even have The Living Daylights adventure.

If you notice, after Sam Mendes, there is so much emphasis on 'the world has changed, old ways etc.'. It all feels out of nowhere and without weight, if its not somehow, someway connected to previous movies.

OKAY, I won't enforce anything, I just put it out there what I saw as factual. That is they might have.

Connery Era:

What was the connection between Dr No and Russia With Love? A hidden organization's revenge. They were still more or less free. Goldfinger was completly free. Even Thunderball is standalone aside from the villain working. Bond is fighting them just from his side without much knowing about 'Spectre/Blofeld'. Until You Only Live Twice. Where he meets Blofeld for first time. You can't be sure how much time passes between each film.

Then, Lazenby Era On Her Majesty's Secret Service have another actor play the character, they thought that having their biggest villain yet is the best idea, and writers decided to lean on the book, making him meet here for first time, 'again'. So ONE/fan must overlook it, for his interests sake while making it as contextual as possible. Maybe one can RETCON and see that either he didn't see him face to face in YOLT or that YOLT takes place after OHMSS, and he meets again, but I will go with the previous option.

Next, Diamonds Are Forever, Bond is very eager to find Blofeld in the pre-title sequence. More angry and hard hitting. Ofcourse he can't kill someone out of personal vendetta. He in the end(of pre-title sequence of DAF) 'kills' Blofeld, his anger cools down and he moves on. Some time have probably past between that and main movie. Where Blofeld once more? make a absurd plan/revenge/ escape?-probably as he returns in FYEO. We will get to that.

Moore Era:

So, it starts with Live And Let Die, Bond is an expert and experienced agent here, as he seems to be at more ease and less taking things personally(not that he don't have personal feelings involved).

The Man With The Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, then For Your Eyes Only, here Bond have become experienced, and have made admirors/adversaries(Scarmanga etc.)

In FYEO, pre-title sequence we see, him standing infront of Tracy's grave, that prooves that event of OHMSS, somewhere. THEN octopussy, never say never again, a view to a kill, living daylights. (I will tell about NSNA and TLD later).

Dalton Era:

In Living Daylights, Bond feels more youthfull, doesn't he? then in Licence To Kill he is more mature, ofcourse he never a rookie. But definatly that. So in LTK its mentioned that he was infact married 'but that was long ago'. THEN

Brosnan Era:

Goldeneye film starts with pre-title sequence which takes place 9 YEARS before actual movie, where he iss accused of being a 'relic of certain war'. A dinasour. So that equal to being over-expert. Lot of experience.

There is no factual detial of when the next movies take place and how much gap is between each of them. I personally don't find him old or that-old looking in either Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough until Die Another Day. If I remeber correctl he have little white hairs. There is ofcourse him being in korean prision torture. 14 months.

Other thing, Bond was re-evaluated in 1995 movie, while he was taken a job as trainer or retired and then called back and re-trained in Never Say Never Again, I know non-eon. but Fatima Blush😍

SO THAT IS THAT.

Now, you can see many timejumps and undefined gaps between movies, or in movies themselves. Again, if ONE chooses or get interested in making a as valid and profitable to ONE's personal desires of/from James Bond 007 movie franchise, he or she may, in this case like me see and choose:

[Spectre 2015, NttD 2021 are complete blunders, some of Skyfall too(like not saving Severine, making Moneypenny field agent, idiot of a Q, M dying), even QOS which I love, some part of it too(like not well executed and written,i.e. not bringing back formula and still whining about vesper.), OR any part of the movie which contridict what you want or probable continuity, can be cleared in portions, like he won't completly meet Blofeld in YOLT.]

This all could be cleared in as part of Fever Dream that Bond suffers in Die Another Day torture sequence, even that movie itself is seemingly 'over-the-top' becasue of Bond's unhealthy state.

OKAY, I would do this that is remove 2015 and 2021 movies almost completly and etc. than loose my liking of 'same old james bond'. That is I will treat CR2006 and QOS kind of prequels. LALD taking place between them as it was next novel after casino, along with TND, as it have have new kind of villain. Dr No is the first mission after 'that black and white scene and getting double o'.

TLD(youth feel) can take place after DN, same goes for FRWL, as it is immidiate spectre's revenge.

after quantum, movies like from Goldfinger, Goldeneye's Arkangel, Thunderball, YOLT, OHMSS, etc. could take place.

From TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, FYEO(after OHMSS), TWINE, GE, AVTAK, LTK(after FYEO). SF(severine is saved, M don't die, just retires, q is not idiot, moneypenny is just desk worker).

Octopussy(Bond have been working long enough, that a 'victim' of his, daughter has became a danger),

NSNA after sometime.

There is lot of space where next james bond movie(s) could take place, they just have to follow the formula, make standalone-episodic, balance of campy and gritty. In first movie they can make joke about Moneypenny killing Bond, nightmare of having child and replaced, few refrences to past films, like dusty files of {skyfall, arkangel, dr no, moonraker, scanchez, thunderball etc.} and move on, with next movies simply being normal james bond movies.

END

Its fun to imagine its same Bond fighting and going through adventures of moonraker, living daylights, dr no, you only live twice, thunderball, live and let die, octopussy, the world is not enough, skyfall, quantum etc. Its a reason I like him, a kind of unsaid immortal feel, a forever friend. Different times and places.

Ofcourse one must know and accept that not one single James Bond movie actually follow any timeline/storyline/continuity, NO not even skyfall, quantum of solace, spectre, nttd, No not at all. Its just a FACT. Same goes for each actors.

One must take them as stories, and if interest there make a storyline by himself.

The title for next movie, my choice would be Nightfall.

Sorry for yet another post about that movie and so late into the party but after watching it i became really interesed in the original text and today I just finished reading the whole thing. These are my thoughts after finishing it comparing it to the Nolan´s movie (sorry if a misremember anything about the movie but i watched it a very long ago)

I was very disappointed by Nolan´s Odyssey and i was interesed on seeing how much of my criticism were on the original. I didn't hate the movie and it had some very great scenes. Specially in the middle i thought the adventure was really fun and entertaining. But both the beginning and the ending was to me very boring and nonsensical. After an honestly good scene about war and its effects and a very creative use of Athena Why then waste the last 20 minutes on this random slaughter of the suitors which dont connect at all with this theme? What if one of the suitors is Athena? And why the fuck Odysseus waste so much time hiding his identity?

After reading the poem i still think the Ithaca of the poem was the most boring part of it. But even in the original poem the suitors are treated much more humanly than the Nolan´s movie. We see their souls in Hades. We see their perspective and side of the story. Even if the poem agrees in its slaughter, it is shown very brutally and even it is implied that Odysseus will not be able to come back home because of this action. If the movie wanted to have a more anti-violence message why not focus on this elements of the text? Why not show this killing as a brutal act of violence product of his unmanaged anger and the reason Odysseus cannot come back home? Why show it as an epic and grand return?

The original poem is full of ideas and Nolan is bringing his own ideas into the adaption (which is fine) but the final product is really a mesh of all of it without coming into a coherent product. In the original poem Odysseus is a trickster. Every time he goes somewhere he lies about his identity. This element is kinda odd at first but at the end you accept it as a part of this character. In the movie by contrast Odysseus is too stoic, he is too tragic so when he is shown tricking other people or taking weird risks as listening to the sirens it doesn't feel like a part of a coherent character but as the original poem being forced into this adaptation.

The movie doesn't deliver into his own version of the story but a lot of the heart of the poem is lost too. The saddest scenes of the original (Odysseus wanting to embrace the ghost of his mother after discovering she died or him hiding his tears when listening to the bard) aren't found in the movie. In the hades scene instead the scene is replaced by the Sinon scene which serves the dual purpose of building the antiwar theme and make you hate the suitors. But i dont think the trade is worthwhile. As explained before this two ideas at the end contradict each other and even if its a good scene of its own it makes the journey less personal to Odysseus.

And at the end when Odysseus and Penelope finally met instead of celebrating the return of two lovers at last we instead are directed to think about how bad war is. Which is fine but if this idea doesnt connect with the rest of the movie you are sacrificing the heart of the story for a theme that at the end doesnt resolve.

Sorry for being to negative. I really didnt hate the movie. But after reading the poem i couldn't stop thinking about why it works much better than the movie counterpart.

A history of Berlin, film by forgotten film, from the owner of one of the Berlin's last video stores.

Graf Haufen has spent 42 years at Videodrom in Kreuzberg, and his picks go well beyond the canon:

Gerhard Lamprecht’s films of 1920s poverty in Wedding, an *almost* propaganda-free Nazi-era romance, post-war rubble films, Taxi zum Klo, and Blechkiste Berlin, a film made by the scene, for the scene.

He also explains why he thinks B-Movie gets 80s Berlin wrong.

https://www.heistberlin.com/a-history-of-berlin-film-from-the-shelves-of-videodrom/

Question, Which film is better, Fail Safe or Dr. Strangelove?

I re-watched Dr. Strangelove recently, and I have re-watched this film so many times. It truly is a great film, in large part because of the performances. Peter Sellers gives a master performance, George C. Scott gives a legendary performance, Slim Pickens, Sterling Hayden all great. What also made the film great is just how absurd the whole film is, and how Kubrick realized just how absurd the whole Nuclear Conflict is and how ludicrous it was for 2 mega-powers wo wipe us out for the pettiest and stupid reasons. Dr. Strangelove, to me, is a perfect, and probably one of Kubrick's Best.

On Fail Safe, I must admit, I only heard of this film because of Dr. Strangelove and how Kubrick & Peter George sued the production because they felt it infringed on Red Alert, the source material Dr. Strangelove was based on and managed to get the film released after Dr. Strangelove, this Fail Safe being overshadowed.

I heard people talk positively over the film, but I must admit, I haven't the film until just now, and I gotta say, It's a great film. While Dr. Strangelove is absurd, Fail Safe takes the whole premise seriously. Sidney Lumet masterfully directs the film, The performances are top notch, and I think the best performance was Henry Fonda.

I will say, You can tell the film was shot very cheaply. Granted, Dr. Strangelove was also shot cheap, but Fail Safe really looks like it wasn't made in the best conditions, and that Lumet had to shoot in own backyard. But I think it adds to the grittiness of the film.

Which is the better film, It's tough, but I'll give the edge to Dr. Strangelove. The Performances in Dr. Strangelove are just very memorable but I will admit, I was surprised with Fail Safe.

What do you think, Which film is better, Fail Safe or Dr. Strangelove?

Digger is a film about an oil billionaire subjected to the indignity of public moral judgment. His defense is that he gave the world exactly what it wanted, that modern civilization was built on the back of his industry, and that its beneficiaries have become rather sanctimonious about the consequences, an old argument, but I suspect Iñárritu may find it personally compelling. Is it possible that the man has spent thirty years manufacturing spiritual emergencies for the bourgeoisie and now finds himself implicated in the vulgarity of the enterprise?

The play within the film is an industrial catharsis facility. Ecological catastrophe is reduced to one repulsive individual, ceremonially dispatched before an audience weeping with gratitude. Girard for people with HBO subscriptions. Its producer is a billionaire security magnate whose intentions are never quite clear. Is he laundering his conscience, settling a family score, performing a genuine public service, or enjoying the privilege of writing the definitive account of his uncle's life? Probably all of them. The more interesting question is whether he knows. One imagines Iñárritu has entertained similar doubts while spending nine figures to communicate his latest revelation about the human condition.

Digger himself is no Daniel Plainview. Plainview is a miserable creature, hollowed out by appetite. Digger seems delighted with himself and principally offended that anyone would ask him to apologize. This is also a recognizable artistic temperament. The great director, like the robber baron, considers himself a benefactor of civilization. He has organized capital, labor, and technology around an enormous personal ambition, and the world has rewarded him handsomely for it. His accomplishments are real. So, presumably, is his vanity. What troubles him is not necessarily what he has done, but the increasingly sordid character of the enterprise to which he has devoted himself.

There is something almost religious about this predicament. Iñárritu belongs to a generation for whom cinema still promised a kind of secular transcendence, and he has enjoyed an unusually successful priesthood. But the rituals have become grotesque. Every film must announce some tremendous moral urgency, every audience must undergo its prescribed revelation, every director must contrive a still more elaborate demonstration of his seriousness. The old faith survives in the form of increasingly expensive liturgy. Perhaps he has begun to suspect that the industry has turned its highest aspirations into a particularly sophisticated method of selling people their own emotions. The difficulty is that he has been among its most enthusiastic and successful practitioners.

Yet the film is also a peculiar tribute to the institution it appears to despise. Beneath the cynicism is a fascination with the sheer improbability of the undertaking: the immense coordination of people and resources required to conjure an experience out of nothing. Cinema's industrial character is both its embarrassment and its miracle. Iñárritu seems less interested in repudiating the medium than in mourning what has happened to it, while recognizing that his own ambitions helped bring about the transformation. There is no especially dignified position available to him. Even the attempt to expose the machinery requires putting it to work again, and the audience's appreciation of his self-awareness becomes another product for sale.

That Digger apparently bombed as Warner Bros. reached the end of its independent existence is almost offensively appropriate. A grandiose, expensive film about the exhaustion of grandiose, expensive filmmaking becomes an inadvertent epitaph for the studio system that sustained it. The comedy rarely works, but the historical joke is excellent. Iñárritu seems to be conducting an autopsy on an institution he still loves, using the very instruments that killed it. And like his billionaire protagonist, he remains rather proud of what they accomplished.

In the movie the Green Mile; Paul is 44 in the year 1935 when he walked the Green Mile. He was 108 years old when the movie came out in 1996. Mr. Jangles was still alive in the movie. Now for the sake of the conversation, lets ask, what would Paul's years left be on average? It's simple, we compare to how many lifetimes he lived vs the average mouse and use that as a comparison for Paul, this is if Mr. Jangles died in the movie at the end. Average life expectancy of a mouse is 2 years, Mr. Jangles lived for at least 30 mouse lifetimes over the course of 61 years between 1935 and 1996. For comparison, the average life expectancy in the US where Paul is from; is 78 years of age. This means to reach 30 human life times, he would need to at least to have lived 2,379 years, since he's 105 that means 2,274 years left.

I've finally put my hat into the Digger discourse, and I have a lot of thoughts. The most interesting idea the film presents, to me, is the tension between political art as a form of protest and the uncomfortable reality that making art about a crisis doesn't necessarily do anything to stop it.

Digger has been a fascinatingly divisive film. Much of the discourse lies in the film's $150–180 million budget and its aggressively political satire. I don't personally get the hate coming from critical circles, especially the daggers for Iñarritu personally. I can understand why the film appears self-indulgent or pretentious, but to me, a film is only that when it gives nothing back to the audience. But, I found Digger to be really really funny. And super entertaining. Once the infamous twist is revealed I still found it terribly fascinating. It's a film that makes very little effort to temper its ambitions or make itself palatable. Personally, I loved it.

What I found most compelling was how Iñárritu uses absurdist comedy to approach a world that already feels absurd. The film's political targets are hardly subtle: corporate power, environmental catastrophe, political opportunism, overconsumption, and the various hypocrisies that allow these systems to persist. But I thought the humor worked best when it emerged naturally from the characters and the situations rather than feeling like a punchline engineered to make sure the audience understood the joke.

But the element I keep returning to is the film's relationship with art itself. What does it mean to create political art when the problems you're criticizing seem too entrenched to change? What does satire accomplish when audiences can laugh at the absurdity of the world, but then choose to engage with the world the exact way corporate powers and politicians want you to behave.

I found the film's treatment of these questions more complicated than either a straightforward celebration of satire or a nihilistic dismissal of its power. There's a kind of ambivalence at work here. The film recognizes how easily political outrage becomes entertainment, but it also seems to believe there's something valuable in the creative act itself. Art may not give us the power to change the world, but perhaps it can give us a temporary way to confront the people and systems that make us feel powerless.

I'm curious how others here interpreted the film, particularly its relationship with political satire and artistic expression. Does Digger meaningfully interrogate the limits of political art? Can a film acknowledge the limitations of satire while still functioning as a great satire?

I wrote my extended thoughts in a Substack review if anyone is interested:

Digger Review: Satirizing a Satirical World

Of all the theories about the Cube (ignoring the sequel and prequel), I genuinely find this the most probable after a recent reviewing. There are way too many f-u coincidences and I think they're being watched the entire time, I also think they're controlling which rooms go where too.

Firstly, the escape artist is their best bet and the one going head first into rooms with having shoe as "fool proof" way to determine if room is rigged. It turns out, the first possible room he goes into with them as a group can't possibly detect the shoe and his face is melted with acid in front of them.

The student gets to keep her glasses when put into the Cube, which will enable her to read numbers and figure out about prime numbers. Whoops, it's not fool actually proof, hence mentally handicapped but brilliant mathematical savant appears. Lets shuffle the coordinates so the guy with severe sensory issues has to stay dead quiet in a room full of sensors to sounds....which is the only room they can go into to go forward without backtracking.

Wait, Leaven and Worth abandoned Quentin and after making calculations through various rooms and finally reach the exit point (they'd also had all been fine all along had they stayed in the room they started in, LOL?), so lets drop Quentin right back to the exit bridge to encounter them once more.

It all seems like the creators of the Cube are watching and shuffling the rooms in a way that will trolling them like a dark comedy.

This is a fairly slight coming-of-age story in which Larson plays an art school washout, Kit, who has been obsessed with unicorns and their related aesthetic (rainbows, glitter) all her life. While navigating the corporate world in all its misery she is unexpectedly invited to a mysterious brick-and-mortar store that promises to furnish her with the actual titular creature.

Kit just needs to prove herself worthy by setting up a safe home environment, which is challenging because of the ongoing tension with her parents (Joan Cusack and Bradley Whitford), whom Kit has moved back in with. On the bright side, this brings her into contact with Virgil (Mamoudou Athie), a hardware store employee who agrees to the task without knowing the exact nature of what he's gotten into. They share a nice chemistry, although I'm not exactly sure what about Kit is appealing to him other than that she looks like Brie Larson.

As construction proceeds in Kit's parents' backyard, it helps dovetail the unicorn-store storyline with that of Kit and her family. I would have preferred spending the rest of the movie with this group of characters and never going back to the office, where I don't think the screenplay tells us anything we haven't already learned from other movies about corporate America (ie, it kills the artistic spirit; it's got creepy male managers who take advantage of female subordinates). These scenes are shot in a bloodless, depressing tone that I'm sure was on purpose, but this also made the first half of the film drag.

Similarly, I wasn't a fan of one very fundamental aspect of the casting, but I understand the why's behind it--namely, Larson in the lead. Although Kit's age is never specifically mentioned, I had trouble buying her as someone who, presumably, would be in her early 20s and a relative newbie to the wider world. Admittedly, Kit does have a certain psychological complexity that Larson effectively conveys, and she's a big movie star, which makes me wonder if the film would have even gotten made had she opted to play one of the supporting characters instead. Not to take anything away from Samuel L. Jackson as the Willy Wonka-ish unicorn store owner, but I think Larson would have been just as interesting in that role.

To her credit, as a director, Larson is consistent in her tone throughout: This is a tale full of whimsy, but everyone plays it with dead seriousness, and as a result there are moments towards the end with genuine poignancy that we least expect. I don't recommend this film wholeheartedly, but it's nice enough as a 90-minute diversion, and Larson shows enough potential behind the camera that if she makes another movie at some point, I'd check it out.

Yesterday I rewatched Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds from 2005 with Tom Cruise. The kids in the movie were so annoying and I found myself asking, is this REALLY how children behave? I thought, NO! I experienced something like this in another rewatch, also from Steven Spielberg: Jurassic Park. To me it just feels unrealistic to have such annoying children around that behave in a way I cannot believe to be real behaviour. I also was a child once, I saw how other children acted around me. The children in his movies are like fantasy children, but in a realistic setting.

Am I wrong or is Steven Spielberg just incredibly out of touch with children? Maybe he had an especially terrible time as a child (or as an adult with his children)? What do you think?

The film opens with a clown being dragged out of a children’s sh
to fight in the Spanish Civil War. He asks to remove his makeup, but the officer tells him to keep it on because it’ll scare the enemy.

Years later, his son Javier does almost the opposite. He deliberately scars his own face to make his clown appearance permanent.

There’s something disturbing about those two moments together. In the first, a man is forced to keep wearing a face that belongs to a different life. In the second, another man makes that face impossible to remove.

The film’s political symbolism can get pretty heavy-handed, but this detail works without much explanation. By the end, being a clown isn’t really a performance anymore.

I came away from Digger feeling like I watched a different movie than most critics or viewers.

Kenny Rockwell nearly directly states that the play doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, that it is catharsis for the audience who hate his uncle. And everyone is complicit with his vision, especially Martson who is happy to use Rockwell’s spy network / intel company to find his daughter.

The last scene blew me away. All these well off New Yorkers are putting on their fancy air filtration masks to leave the theater and it’s a fasicst hellscape out there. I thought Iñárritu was really challenging the audience to ask what it would take to stop a man like Digger and the system he represents rather than getting fictional revenge. I think if’s also a dig at Hollywood pretension about films that “matter” when it comes to truly massive problems like climate change. This all struck me as less subtle than Don’t Look Up, which used an asteroid metaphor whole Digger was so explicit about climate change while making the peril immediate with the glaciers breaking off.

"I pedaled as fast as I could as if I were escaping... From longing, from innocence, from her. Time has passed, and I have loved many women. And as they've held me close... and asked if I will remember them, I've said, 'Yes, I will remember you.' But the only one I've never forgotten is the one who never asked... Malena."

I just finished watching this movie and I am completely lost in my feelings right now. The ending line hit me like a train. It is simultaneously one of the most beautiful, deeply sad, and disturbing things I’ve ever watched.

What struck me the most was Renato's love for her. Amidst all the cruelty, exploitation, and hypocrisy of the town, his affection felt like the only pure and respectful thing she had—even if it was from a distance, unrequited, and born out of a boy's coming-of-age infatuation. He saw her humanity when everyone else just saw an object.

Also, can we talk about the setting? The film is set in Sicily, Italy (and yes, you are completely right—the same region that gives The Godfather its hauntingly mesmerizing atmosphere). There is something so profoundly captivating yet tragic about the way Sicilian women are portrayed in these classic films. The raw beauty, the quiet strength, and the absolute melancholy they carry is unforgettable.

I’m still trying to process everything.

Just got done watching this great film. There is a lot that can be said about the film, but for now, I will stick to the two contrasting love stories in the film, and how each is well realized.

Firstly, there is the silent, respectful and deep romance shared between Master Li Mu Bai and Michelle Yeoh's Yu Shu Lien. There is a sense of honor associated with it, along with calmness, quiet longing and something even spiritual that defines it. There is nothing explicit or physical about this relationship, but the confession of love in the end by Master Li Mu Bai hits hard and deep. This romance we can say is like water; calm, cool but deep. And the resolution of their relationship is also likewise.

On the other hand is the fiery romance between Jen Yu and Dark Cloud. That is what can happen when young people can fall in love. It's passionate, intense, physical and defined by grand gestures. And the conclusion of this particular relationship is also made through a dramatic act by Jen Yu (which by the way I am still wondering why she jumped to her death. Guilt perhaps?).

I did not know that a wuxia film with some of the best fight choreography put to a film would involve two touching and well developed romance stories. Great film by Ang Lee.

General Discussion threads threads are meant for more casual chat; a place to break most of the frontpage rules. Feel free to ask for recommendations, lists, homework help; plug your site or video essay; discuss tv here, or any such thing.

There is no 180-character minimum for top-level comments in this thread.

Follow us on:

• Letterboxd
• Twitter

The sidebar has a wealth of information, including the subreddit rules, our killer wiki, all of our projects... If you're on a mobile app, click the "(i)" button on our frontpage.

Sincerely,

David

Recently, I discovered this arthouse-adjacent theater in my city, which is like 30 minutes by foot. So, yesterday, I went there for the first time for a screening of Everybody Knows (2018) dir. Asghar Farhadi. Now, while the screen and the seating were actually kinda subpar compared to my local chain theater, the vibes were - and I don't say this lightly - FUCKING IMMACULATE.

The theater itself is situated in an old restored church. The seating is surrounded on both sides by greek-style nude statues, and on the walls beyond those statues, hanged large colorful murals. Above the statues, between the murals, were 6 HUGE wall-mounted fans, 3 on each side, to ensure proper air circulation — and while they were not quiet, they were clearly intentionally designed and spaced in such a way that their noise would blend in with the background. A minute after they had been turned on, I had already forgotten they were even there. All of that gave this place some type of je ne sais quoi that made just being there vaguely enjoyable.

The film started, and I discovered another immense joy that I hadn't considered: the audience. They were diverse of age; some young, some old, one of them even concerningly old, but they all had one thing in common — they had come to this niche arthouse theater that's actually in a restored church, to watch a screening of a 2018 film with 60k views on letterboxd. They were all - at least to some extent - cinephiles. And they knew to follow theater etiquette.

The theater was packed full, but it was so silent. No one photographed the title screen and blinded the audience with their flash. Heck, there wasn't a phone to be found in sight. Very few of them had popcorn or any snacks, and those who did, knew not to munch loudly. No one whispered to their friends. When one person had to leave, they did so very discretely. And, get this, they didn't do an intermission during this 2 hour and 15 minutes film (even a less than 90 minute film will typically have an intermission here, I know, its awful).

The film gripped me hard in a way films rarely and I enjoyed it thoroughly from beginning to end. Its the kind of gripping where you forget that your bladder is full. When the credits rolled and the light came on, I actually looked around and had to gather where I was for like 3 seconds — which is an awesome feeling that I hadn't felt literally since I was a child. So, having just had this really amazing experience, I naturally walked out of the theater, hungry as all hell, bladder full, and had a mini-existential crisis during the 30 minute walk home.

Was it really the film that I enjoyed, or the theater? Or, to put it another way, even if the film is good, just how much did this experience elevate it? One of the things I enjoyed most about the film is the sound design — would my kinda shitty flatscreen that I watch most films on have done it justice? How many films have I watched were hindered by the fact that I can't afford a better TV or a better sound system?

Even beyond that my flat screen, my local chain theater has different sizes of halls, some are better, some worse. One of them has an absolutely humongous screen (not IMAX, just really big screen) and amazing sound. Another has really low sound/speakers. Recently, I watched Digger on that really big screen in an empty hall, and it became my third fave film of the year. But it was only there for 2 days, before it was moved to a shittier screen (no one was watching it). Would it have been my third fave of the year if I had gotten around to seeing it 2 days later?

And even beyond just me, how does that affect discussions surrounding art, and in particular, film? Have the people that have seen Zone of Interest at home really experienced the same film as those that saw it in a theater? What about Oppenheimer? What about The Odyssey, and how the people who will see it at home will have it at a completely different aspect ratio than standard or IMAX? People will always have different personal experiences with a film, but sometimes I wonder—

At last, I had arrived to my apartment. I rush to the bathroom and have a really humongous piss.

Sometimes I wonder, how much of film discussion is people having different experiences to the same stimulus due to personal taste versus people having different experiences due to coming in contact with fundamentally different stimuli.

As in: A Director makes a Meta-Commentary about a film-genre, he actually abhorrs.

All the aspects of the film receiving criticism are so exaggeratedly done, that I'm sure a director knows it:

Action-sequences are very repetitive? Yes!
Film ending with no conclusion at all? Yes!
Weird and silly looking aliens talking about something very epic and cryptic? Yes!
Characters are clichéd and interchangeable? Yes!
Silly unnecessary Mid-Credits-Scene? Yes!
Characters learning, that the aliens are not evil at all but still shooting them anyway? Yes!
Constant gratuitous shooting and explosions? Yes!

It's first half is fun and it's second half seems to willingly tell you, that the aspects you enjoyed about the first half are silly and empty. Then overdoing them so much, that we realize, how absurdly over the top it all is. Immersion is lost by hyperemphasis on entertainment-mainstream-movie archetypes.

I realize, that if that is true, it would be the most expensive elaborate prank in cinema history. But could that be the case?

Also: It's funny how much of this interpretation weighs on the director's name in the credits:

Would it say Haneke, von Trier or so... Meta-Commentary! Bay, Emmerich? Serious!

I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this!

EDIT: I know this is an unpopular opinion but instead of downvoting simply because you disagree, I would love to hear your opinion. I think I explained my reasoning well.

I'll start with what I loved and appreciated, because (unfortunately) it is shorter:

1. I really appreciate the ultimate theme/point: questioning of the "obvious" strive for honor many traditional movies (and media, in general) accept as a maxim, and the non-heroic "catch-22" anyone following that path will probably encounter eventually (as well as the anti climactic ending where the character "realizing his fallacy" doesn't just magically solve the consequences of his actions).
2. I loved the "fairy tail" nature cinematography and the vibe it creates. It was done well.
3. Patel (and a few others) gave great performances.

However:

1. I found the plot very incoherent and hard to follow because it felt like scenes were cut so sporadically and I just didn't get many of them. I found myself constantly confused and wondering as to what the fuck is actually going on (and not in a good, curious way, bu rather in a vexed way). (I heard people excusing this for the movie "being abstract and deliberately set this way for the vibe", but a coherent plot doesn't contradict vibe at all. There are countless movies with plots that make sense and let the viewer follow on what is going on, and still set surreal amazing vibes (of all sorts!!). It really doesn't have to be one or the other...)
2. I don't mind the infidelity to the original work in cases like these (where the movie clearly doesn't give at all the assumption of trying to be accurate or recreate it, but I just feel like if you have to modify the timeline and structure of the story so much, perhaps the theme of the movie simply doesn't fit and you ought choose a different one...
3. Many scenes just felt so goofy, out of place or just plain cheap, and it really ruined the immersion (anything to do the blindfolded old woman at the castle or with the giants, the fox motif just feels useless (and the CGI was TERRIBLE), the many contrived and unnecessary weird looks or gestures (caressing, touching, etc) scenes all throughout the movie (Gawain with the king when he's drunk, Gawain with the old blindfolded woman, Gawain with the bitchy dead/spirit/whatever she is in the cabin about touching him, the weird sex scene with the Lady where she smeared his cum on the sash, etc).
4. The cast not being Celtic-British (let alone the main character). Call me racist or whatever, but I'm just being honest: it ruined the immersion for me. Despite the movie being a reimagination, the plot and setting are based on a classic English legend, and these casting choices felt like wanting to be politically correct and inclusive at the expense of devotion to the theme/vibe.

I'd love to hear what you think!